Talk:Lady Louise Windsor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Mountbatten-Windsor?

It's Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor, isn't it? Also, some note should be made of the fact that she is entitled to the style of royal highness and the title of princess of the UK, but will not be referred to by that style, or something. Unless some sort of royal warrant or letter patent has been issued to deprive her of said style. The page should be moved to either "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Lady Louise Windsor", depending.john 04:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The royal website uses Windsor: [1] --Jiang

It's "Mountbatten Windsor" (no hyphen). She will officially be known as Lady Louise Windsor. Graham :) 04:33, 27 Nov 03 (UTC)

Then is there something wrong with Mountbatten-Windsor? Why is there no hyphen? --Jiang

Because Mountbatten is one of her middle names, not part of her surname. Graham  :) 04:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wrong. Mountbatten is not one of her middle names. Her surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. Windsor is the Royal House name. Lady 'x' Windsor is a title, not a name. So her title is Lady Louise Windsor, her personal name is Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. FearÉIREANN 22:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The M-W article states otherwise. --Jiang

Yes it does doesn't it? Either the article's wrong, or the BBC reporter got it wrong earlier on today. She is certainly only going to be known by the surname Windsor as opposed to Mountbatten-Windsor. Graham  :) 04:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The BBC seems to be wrong, as their article contradicts itself. "The name Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor refers to several family members...With the permission of the Queen, she will instead use the title of a daughter of an earl and be referred to as Lady Louise Windsor." It might also be noted that the Earl and Countess of Wessex have no right to determine the style of their daughter, as the article suggests, and that "the permission of the queen" is a completely meaningless concept. Let's see what the Torygraph says... john 05:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Torygraph provides more detail, although their story seems to be just as garbled and confused. While her surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor," she will be known as "Lady Louise Windsor." What oddness. john 05:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well that's the Royal Family for you... Graham  :) 13:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think I can explain it. Ok, in the 1950s The Queen announced that all her descendents not bearing the HRH, and thus needing a surname, would have the surname M-W. Well, Louise was born and being her grandchild, was entitled to HRH style. There was no revision on the Letters Patent 1917, so this remained effective. Even though Louise is using the style of Lady, as daughter of an Earl, she is still entitled to the HRH Princess title, and therefore she doesn't fall under the category of a descendent without the HRH. Because she does have the HRH, she just does not use it. But there was a problem: her parents didn't want her to use the HRH; they want her to be known as daughter of the Earl of Wessex only. So therefore, what do you call her? Well, for the time being, until such time as there is a new LP or Louise becomes of age, the 'Windsor' surname will be used.

All of this still does not explain why the parents put M-W on her birth certificate. It was like Princess Anne in 1973 using Mountbatten on her marriage certificate. But Anne was HRH Princess and had no surname! --Ashley Rovira (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Male line grandchildren"? Isn't she female? SD6-Agent 14:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What that refers to is the right of the existing monarch's descendants by their male children to call themselves "His Royal Highness" or "Her Royal Highness". Any descendants by the monarch's female children don't have this right. Graham  :) 18:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As she is still a HRH and a Princess until new Letters Patent are issued, she has to be called that in the opening title, in accordance with factual accuracy and the naming conventions. If and when new Letters Patent are issued, the HRH/Princess reference can be moved and mentioned as having been her former title. FearÉIREANN 22:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"as part of a policy to reduce the size of the British Royal Family through the restriction of titles to the monarch and his or her marital family alone, with others receiving commoner courtesy titles."

Where did this come from? Wasn't it because "Lady" would be a more approprate title for the daughter of an Earl? --Jiang 01:23, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Or is this referring to the 1917 Letters Patent? --Jiang

No. All male children of a monarch receive a title. All of their children are known as Prince/ss <name> of title (eg, Prince Michael of Kent, son of the late Duke of Kent, son of George V, etc). In the 1990s a strategy group within the Royal Family concluded that with so many princes and princesses the Royal Family looked massive and could be perceived as all being a burden on the taxpayer, even though only a handful actually receive money from the Civil List and many cost the taxpayer nothing. (It also resulted in conflicts of interest where people like Prince Michael engaged in paid employment elsewhere. As they had no state income they needed it from somewhere but some thought they were using private money to top up state funding. Others thought they were using their titles to earn money.)

It was decided that henceforth only the children of a monarch and the children of the Prince of Wales would be given such titles, and that the children of the monarch's children would have courtesy titles akin to ordinary peers, not titles of prince and princess that flow from being the children of royal dukes and royal earls. Prince Andrew refused to accept the downgrading of his children, who already were princesses, to commoner status, believing that it would be unfair to them to strip them of their titles. It was decided that the rule would apply to the descendants of those members of the Queen's immediate family who had not been born when the rule was introduced. However the relevant Letters Patent have not yet been changed, meaning that Louise is still a HRH and still a Princess of the United Kingdom, specifically Princess Louise of Wessex, later Princess Louise of Edinburgh when he father inherits his father's dukedom. Lady is the standard courtesy title of ordinary earls but not royal earls. FearÉIREANN 23:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I think this article is a farce now. There is too much on the styling of the girl. I think a brief note stating she is entitled to style herself HRH Princess Louise is needed and leave it at that. The reference to Andrew and his daughters does not belong here, the article is supposed to be about Lady Louise, not the styling of Royal Family members. Plus it is not offical that the mentioned proposal even took place. I would edit this article to reflect my concerns and opinions, but I would imagine someone would change it back so what's the point? [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain] ***Everyone*** I worked two summers at Buckingham Palace press office.... and from what I was advised The Lady Louise Windsor is a royal princess in her own right by being a grandchild of the british sovereign in the male line. Understand, Queen Elizabeth didn't find it necessary to issue letters patent sense both parents along with The Queen agreed on such a matter. From my understanding of working at the press office, if she had in fact issued letters patent LLW would ofcourse be stripped of her royal entitlement which was re-confirmed due to George V's letters patent issued in 1917. It's best to know that the british sovereign has royal Prerogative when it comes to bestowing titles. And has the right to strip anyone of there title. For example: The Princess Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife was the daughter Edward VII. When The Princess Lousie, Princess Royal got married, Edward VII issued letters patent granting the children of The Princess Royal titular dignity of royal highness, something they would've not been entitled to as being grandchildren of the monarch in the female line. Her husband was the Duke of Fife. Normally they would've gained their rank of Lady from their father's dukedom. Basically if Queen Elizabeth's daughter The Princess Anne agreed with The Queen to elevate her son and daughter's rank to Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland just the sovereign's "wish" isn't good anough in such a station becouse letters patent would've had to be granted due to the fact that her grandchildren are from the female line. You must also take into account that Letters Patent issued in 1917 regulated those who can and cannot be styled HRH. The reason The Queen didn't issue letters patent regarding the qualification of LLW is becouse she knows legally her granddaughter is entitled to such a titular dignity and by issueing letters patent to say otherwise would in fact be morally wrong. In a nut shell The Queen has the right to bestow titular dignity on anyone that she pleases. So LLW is rightfully a royal princess by letters patent but use's the style of Lady at the sovereign's will.

It is official, as Buckingham Palace confirmed at the time and since. As to saying "she is entitled to style herself HRH Princess Louise" is factually incorrect. She is HRH Princess Louise, as the 1917 Letters Patent makes clear. It was decided, as part of the process of slimming down the size of the Royal Family, to use a different title for her, but as this is an encyclopædia and has clear naming conventions on royalty, wikipedia has to use the official title along with the colloquial one chosen for use. And as the issue of her name is the big issue right now, and as the child has done nothing right now to include, it is perfectly normal for the article to focus on what right now is the big issue. When the article grows as she does, then the section on her name will be a smaller section of the overall article. As to editing the "article to "reflect [your] concerns and opinions", this is an encyclopædia; it is not designed to reflect your concerns and opinions, it is designed to reflect facts. And right now the major fact about Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is that though she is a standard princess, it was decided to use a different title when referring to her, a unique occurance in British constitutional history. FearÉIREANN 19:55, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
She's a baby. There;s nothing better to mention. --Jiang

Still, if her surname is Mountbatten Windsor it is strange that she is styled Lady Louise Windsor. Which is not a title but an appelation usually used with the surname.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor (future)

It's anybody's guess for certain how this young lady will be titled and styled in the future.

Two things, though: back at the time Princess Anne married Mark Phillips, she signed her maiden name in the register as "Anne Mountbatten-Windsor", which set off a lot of comment and eventually (not immediately, but in a year or two) the Queen issued an announcement that her immediate family would henceforth be known by the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor". This surname didn't carry over to cousins and such, obviously; it wasn't entirely clear whether she meant just her immediate nuclear family (her own children). This might be taken as a sign that she didn't, or that options are open.

The second is mere rumor and speculation from the time the Earl of Wessex married: comment was made that he and his new wife took relatively modest titles (supposedly riffing on "Shakespeare in Love" with their love of the media and as a bit of a joke - the title hadn't been used in ages, and I don't believe for an earl at all - I seem to remember the last actual use of 'Wessex' in a title was for the King of Wessex pre-Conquest) not just to downplay the whole "perception that we're freeloading on the Civil List" thing, but also with the future expectation that when the Duke of Edinburgh dies, Edward will inherit his title and Sophie become Duchess of Edinburgh. If that happens, the opportunity will be there, at least, to elevate the title and style of Lady Louise; although that may not happen in keeping with the "downplaying" attitude.

I think it's a pity, personally.

JH

Title

Although this article should state Louise's entitlement to be a princess with the style HRH, she is offically styled Lady Louise Windsor by both the Court Circular and Buckingham Palace. Using Princess Louise of Wessex as the introduction is confusing and inaccurate. She is styled with the Queen's permission, which means whatever the Queen has decided her style is, that is what she uses. A similar case is Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester who would normally carry the title of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, however was granted permission by the Queen to be styled Princess Alice. Therefore I propose this article mentions the claim to the title of princess, but keeps the main introduction as Lady Louise Windsor. I know some people insist that she should be styled Princess Louise of Wessex, and other British royality pages in Wikipedia refer to her as such. But surley this is confusing to people with less knowledge of the British royality. Also it is ridiculus that Wikipedia is perhaps the only organisation refering to Louise with this title. Astrotrain the knowledgable

She doesn't have a "claim" to being a Royal Highness and a Princess - she is one under Letters Patent, which state that she shall "have and at all times hold and enjoy" those titles. Letters Patent are legally binding and can't be revoked by press release. Proteus (Talk) 15:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think my revisions make the article more useful. Letters patent, remember are not legally binding on the sovereign, who has in this instance decided that Louise should be styled as the daughter of an Earl, rather than a granddaughter of the sovereign. At the end of the day, the Queen has decided she is Lady Louise and this overrules any letters patent. Astrotrain the merciful
As far as the law is concerned, the girl in question is "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex." Letters patent are legal documents: they cannot be overridden by press releases. She is a Princess, but commonly known as a Lady.
I understand that HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was not the beneficiary of special letters patent either. But in her case, the question is once again a matter of style. I would imagine that, officially, she is a Dowager Duchess, but nevertheless known as "Princess Alice," just as the Lady Louise is a officially a Princess, but nevertheless known as "The Lady Louise Windsor." -- Emsworth 16:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the noble lord :-). Lady Louise is officially a princess by virtue of being the daughter of a royal peer and grand-daughter of a sovereign, but chooses (or it has been chosen for her) to use the title she would have had her father been an ordinary earl. FearÉIREANN 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it expected that new Letters Patent will be drawn up for make Princess Louise's (yes, yes, I know...) title as BuckP has suggested? If so, when? If some are issued, this point will become moot, of course; if not, well...
James F. (talk) 17:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The general consensus over at alt.talk.royalty at the time seems to have been that the royal family seems to be being rather sloppy, and there's no evidence of any intention to have a letter patent or other instrument (I believe a royal warrant, or some such, would be sufficient - and was perhaps used for Princess Alice). john k 23:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no Princess Louise of Wessex, the title does not exist in Queen Elizabeth II's court. The court circular, which always uses the correct title, refers to her as Lady Louise Windsor. The Queen has given permission for her to be styled as Lady Louise Windsor, which over-rides any letters patent. Princess Louise of Wessex is an inaccurate title and is not used anywhere else by anyone else in the world. If the Queen sees fit for her to be Lady Louise then this should suffice for wikipedia. Astrotrain the annoyed

Absolute tosh. The Queen's word is law on royal titles but that word is given through the issue of Letters Patent bearing her seal and signature. She is a Princess unil such a document is issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.59.109 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"...styled as the children of a duke"

After their marriage, the Earl and Countess of Wessex announced that, with the Queen's permission, that any future child of theirs would be styled as the children of a duke.

Why, if their father is an earl? Marnanel 01:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because a younger son would probably be "Lord N Windsor" (like Lord Frederick Windsor, also not the son of a duke), rather than merely the Hon. N Windsor. Although I'm not sure of this - it should be checked out. john k 03:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, as discussed, Edward is intended to be the next-created Duke of Edinburgh.
James F. (talk) 19:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The way it's put it sounds like they expected Prince Philip to die before they had any kids of their own. Marnanel 20:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that any Prince has the right to have children styled as the children of a Duke - it surely wouldn't be fair for Edward's son to have a lower style than the son of Prince Michael of Kent, would it? john k 21:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

HRH

I've amended her style in accordance with what it says on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page476.asp , which is on the Royal Family's own website. Jongarrettuk 06:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The point is that no-one calls her HRH, and no-one will ever call her HRH. We can't just call her HRH on a pseudo-legal technicality that no-one else takes any notice of. The world is not governed by letters patent, they are not laws.
By all means mention the discrepancy between the letters patent and what is followed in practice, but don't call her HRH Princess Louise of Windsor, because it is just patent nonsense to do so. (pun intended:) )
Now every other article on wiki does not have the title (previously there was a mish-mash - and I'm sure we can agree that wikipedia should be internally consistent on the point).
Finally, I don't think it's fair to ignore the reference on the Royal Family's website on the grounds that the website is 'crap'. Especially when it clearly reflects the Royal Family's practice. Jongarrettuk 10:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We've already discussed this (try reading the talk page before editing), and the state of the article before you messed around with it reflects the view of several royalty experts. Letters Patent are legally binding, and can't be ignored because you feel like it. Anyway, HRH and Princess go together, and it's utterly absurd to use one without the other. (And, for the record, the Royal web site is useless. It claims (amongst other things) that HM is Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster, which is utter rubbish, and is hardly personally written by the Royal Family.) Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did review and reflect on the earlier discussion. It appeared inconclusive on the point. There was certainly no consensus claiming that she is actually referred to as HRH in real life.

You don't offer a source for your assertion on how binding Letters Patent are - and in particular what happens when the Royal Family's practice diverges from them.

The argument that HRH and Princess necessarily go together is, of course, wrong. Diana, Princess of Wales had the terminology HRH stripped from her. The monarch confers the style HRH, but not the term princess (though the monarch may choose to confer that title on someone who does not have it by right).

I'm puzzled by your assertion the the Queen isn't Duke of Normandy or Duke of Lancaster. I don't know who you think holds those positions, but when you've done your research, you'll find out it's the Queen.

Finally, the website may not be written by the Royal Family (though who knows, I understand HM and the Duke of Edinburgh are keen surfers), but the announcement before The Earl and Countess of Wessex' marriage that their children would not bear the title HRH would have been personally approved by the Queen.Jongarrettuk 11:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article is now consistent - it states what she is actually called, and later on notes what titles she is entitled to use, but does not use. Jongarrettuk 12:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diana ceased also to be a princess of the UK upon her divorce. Her use of the style "Diana, Princess of Wales" did not indicate that she was Princess of Wales - it meant that she was divorced from the Prince of Wales. This is standard practice for divorced peeresses. The Queen does not hold the position of Duke of Lancaster. She owns the Duchy of Lancaster, but the monarch cannot hold a peerage title - all peerage titles revert to the crown upon accession. There has not been a Duke of Lancaster since 1413. The Queen is also not Duke of Normandy. Although she is the ruler of the Channel Islands which were once part of the Duchy of Normandy, her predecessor, Henry III, gave up the right to use the title "Duke of Normandy" in 1259 in a treaty with the King of France. Although later English monarchs would claim the throne of France itself, none would claim the title of Duke of Normandy by virtue of their rule over the Channel Islands. Finally, the point isn't whether the Queen approves the usage. The point is that the Queen can't change a letter patent, which is legally binding, through means of a press release. A formal instrument is required, and none has ever been made. john k 14:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) Where are the references to your assertions?
(2) Are you seriously suggesting she is called HRH rather than just entitled to use HRH (which the Royal Family and Italic texteveryone else apart from this encyclopaedia do not use)?
(3) What is wrong with using the name she is known by at the start, and then referring to the Letters Patent later, as my last version did?
(4) Letters patent permit or grant things (or remove things that have been permitted or granted beforehand). What authority have you for them (and specifically George V's Letters Patent on the HRH style) requiring things?
(5) Is some legal cloud cuckooland name really more important than the one she actually uses? Particularly as mentioning the 'HRH' in the first sentences will confuse people into thinking it is actually used.
(6) I don't agree with the Lancaster and Normandy bits, but won't argue the point here (there are plenty of references around to support my contention). Jongarrettuk 14:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) Which assertions? I'm largely culling from the FAQs for alt.talk.royalty [2]. See particularly question 7 for the stuff about Lady Louise. 2) I am certainly not suggesting that she is called HRH. However, I am also not suggesting that she is "just entitled to use HRH." According to law, she is supposed to be styled HRH. She is not, but this has not been done properly (as it was with Princess/Lady Patricia in 1919). This is a strange situation. 3) The wording has been very carefully chosen. More discussion should be had if we want to change it. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed in principle to using "Lady Louise Windsor" first, although I'm somewhat dubious - the article itself is already at that location. 4) The letter patent of 1917 states: " shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour" [3]. "shall have and at all times hold" suggests that this is not optional. 5) Of course it's not important - the article itself is at Lady Louise Windsor. 6) The Lancaster bit is definitely nonsense. Look in any peerage guide under "Lancaster". Here, for instance, is [Burke's Peerage]. Yes, people in Lancashire toast to "Our Duke, the Queen," but popular local tradition doesn't have legal force. In Normandy, the 1259 treaty is cited in numerous sources. It should be up to you to find evidence (beyond the royal website) that this title has ever actually been used in the centuries since. john k 15:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me summarise where I think we're at on Lady Louise:
(1) We are agreed that if she was styled in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent, she would be styled as a princess and use HRH;
(2) I think we both accept that she is commonly known as 'The Lady Louise Windsor' (which is what the article currently says anyway);
(3) I note that you wouldn't oppose in principle using 'The Lady Louise Windsor' first, though you have reservations about it;
(4) I am strongly opposed to using the term 'HRH Princess Louise of Wessex' as the opener to the article. This is because having it there implies that she is, at least formally, known by that title. This is untrue - nobody, in practice, uses that title. This is the situation de facto. We can argue (and I could even accept) that the legal position is different, but that is irrelevant. My concern is that it is actually misleading to tell readers that she is actually referred to by that name in real life.
The reference you gave to [4] is interesting. It supports my contention rather than yours. It never refers to her as HRH. Indeed, one extract is explicit:
On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is all that matters
Perhaps based on all of this, we can agree that in the first paragraph she is only referred to as The Lady Louise Windsor (ie we take out the bit which says HRH The Princess Louise of Windsor), leaving the issue to be discussed at the end of the article? Jongarrettuk 18:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct - that reference does, in fact, support your case - I had misread it. I do wonder whether precedents really show that such instruments are not necessary. At any rate, I will reserve judgment on the basic issue until others who have previously weighed in on this debate return to the fray. john k 19:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There aren't really many dissenters. Looking at the page again, there's an assertion by FearÉIREANN that it should be in the opening paragraph, and only Proteus who has offered him any support. It's unclear what Proteus thinks about the first para itself. I'm changing it back. If it's reverted again, I'll put it on RfC and go for a wider consensus. Jongarrettuk 19:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, numerous people have worked on this page, or on the discussion page in the past. Other than you, only Astrotrain has supported your position, that I can see. I do think that it should be in the opening paragraph, however, since the exact situation is disputed. john k 01:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article title reflects the name by which one is most commonly known (Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh), but the first mention of his/her name should be their legal name -- Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton, for example (Leighton's peerage lasted for one day, and he was obviously never referred to as "Lord Leighton", but it's the first title mentioned anyway). Now, as for this specific article -- I believe that following naming conventions, John Kenney, Emsworth, and Proteus are correct in in mentioning the HRH Princess Louise... bit. It does not matter whether or not he or she was referred as "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" in real life -- "My concern is that it is actually misleading to tell readers that she is actually referred to by that name in real life." Well, you clarify it within the article then. ugen64 22:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Can you point me to a definition of legal name, I never knew such a thing existed, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise if you can prove otherwise. My understand is that under English law, an individual can legally call himself anything he wants, subject to very few restrictions (such as fraud).
Are you really saying that Wikipedia should start articles about people with a name that quite simply is used in practice by absolutely no-one at any time whatsoever? This is a fact, and I'm sure you'll note that no-one has yet disputed it on this page either.
My understanding is that Wikipedia articles should start with the highest ranking name that has/is actually used in real life. By way of contrast, have a look at Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark where john and others argue what is essentially the opposite to what they are arguing here: namely that she has to be referred to by something she was actually called. To quote john, he says 'Names that aren't there in the real world? That's ridiculous.' This is all I am saying here. Jongarrettuk 22:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Legal name is self-evident -- it's the name legally given to an individual. In this case, I agree with the others -- letters patent are legally binding, and that warrants at least a mention at the start of the article. Certainly, an "individual can legally call himself anything he wants" (I could call myself the Duke of Wikipedia if I really wanted to), but does that mean that the Wikipedia article on that person should reflect what he calls himself? Finally, I have made some edits on the article, including the inclusion of a superscript numeral to get the reader to look at the section describing her titles. ugen64 00:12, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I assume, in the above quote, you meant "legally" as in "not illegally" -- if you meant "legally" as in "legally binding", then I don't agree. ugen64 00:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I meant "legally" as in "not illegally". Similarly, I presume you meant "legally" as in "not illegally" in the first sentence of your last but one paragraph. Unfortunately, I can't see that this gets us anywhere.
I've amended the article again as the first paragraph and the second paragraph of your amended version were contradictory. I hope that this version that incorporates your and my edits can form the basis of a consensus. If you disagree, and you feel strongly that the article needs to mention more about HRH and princess at the start, can we agree that it's in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence? Jongarrettuk 00:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think those sentences contradicted each other -- to "use a name" and "legally known by a name" are two different concepts. While this version is quite all right in my opinion, I remain persistent in my belief that the legal name (provided by an explicit legal document, such as letters patent) of a person should be mentioned first, or at least bolded in the first paragraph. But yes, I think this version is quite satisfactory. ugen64 00:43, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
:) I appreciate your concerns, and I think there are some points on which we're never going to agree with each other on. But I'm glad that we've found a version that we can both agree to be satisfactory. I trust that others will find it an equally satisfactory compromise to this debate. Jongarrettuk 00:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wording

OK, this page was worded badly. In the opening paragraph, it is best to say she is the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II, as this is why she is a member of the Royal Family. No need to repeat parents twice in such a small article. In second paragraph, I have changed some of the styling. Can't say HM The Queen, as this could be any queen. Also Prince Philip is not styled The Prince Philip. Sophie is never styled Princess Edward as her husband has a peerage. And BTW these changes are neither strange or incorrect as some have said. Astrotrain 21:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changes

A couple of changes.

  • It is rather important in the opening paragraph, whatever about saying that HM the Queen is her grandmother, to point out who her father is!!!
  • There was a sort of edit war over the fact that she still is officially HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. I have mentioned that in the second paragraph. As that is her official title, it does have to be up at the top somewhere. It would break normal biographical standards not to mention someone's official title, even an unused one, somewhere at the start. But it isn't in the opening paragraph as that could cause confusion.
  • The Way Ahead committee report has to be mentioned, as that was probably the reason why Edward and Sophie decided to use the form of style they have for their daughter. They may also have been motivated by the example of the Princess Royal, who has won privacy for her children by avoiding titles.

I don't think an accurate article can avoid any of the above. I've tried to do it in as NPOV a way as possible, while providing the context that the article missed. For example, nowhere did it say why she is Lady Louise Windsor and not plain Miss Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. The reason is straightforward. It would be how she would be referred to if her father was an ordinary earl rather than the son of the Queen. They have simply treated her as the daughter of an earl rather than the daughter of a prince. FearÉIREANN 22:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed a while to speak of Louise being entitled to be HRH P L of W, in fact entitlement doesn't come into it. She is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, just as Camilla is officially HRH The Princess of Wales, Queen Mary was officially Queen Mary the Queen Mother etc. In all these cases, the people involved though officially holding one title, have chosen, or in Louise's case has had chosen for her, a different title. So Camilla, while Princess Of Wales, won't use that title but will use a subsidary one, Duchess of Cornwall in practice. Louise will be treated in practice as the daughter of an earl (using The Lady . . . ) rather than the daughter of a prince (which automatically makes her a princess and an HRH) Until new Letters Patent are issued, Louise will be a HRH and a princess. It is simply that that form of address is not being used. FearÉIREANN 11:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's change and comment

Jguk is wrong. It isn't that she "could be styled" Princess Louise of Wessex. She is legally Princess Louise of Wessex. It is officially and legally that. However the Earl and Countess, with the Queen's permission, have opted to use a different working title, namely that of the daughter of an earl (Lady . . . ) as her father is a prince and an earl. The Court Circular goes by the wishes of her parents as approved by the Queen. But legally and officially she is PL of W.

As to his comment that he is a little uneasy about the fact that that the article is almost totally about her style, she is two years old. What else is there to write about? The issue of her style is the only issue right now that can be written about other than the circumstances of her birth. In years to come as more stuff about Louise the person appears then the style bit will be amount to a smaller proportion of a larger article. But right now we have nothing else to write about unless we want to say how many teeth she has, how often her nappies were changed or whether she used disposable or reusable nappies. FearÉIREANN 23:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can she be offically Princes Louise of Wessex, when she is not called that by anyone including the royals themselves? She may be entitled to the style by the 1917 letters patent, but the Queen has given permission for this style to be used. Surley the Queen, being in charge of these things, has decided she is LLW and not princess. In the UK there is no law that gives someone a "legal name". The practice of taking a title or name from your father or husband is custom, and not definable in law. Astrotrain 18:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Almost every statement in that paragraph is incorrect. The 1917 don't "entitle" someone to use the style HRH, they state that they "shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". The Queen is in charge of such things, but she hasn't said that she isn't a Princess, merely that she isn't to be known as a Princess, which are two entirely different things. And, contrary to what you assert, people do have legal names, and such names are governed by Common Law, not merely custom. Proteus (Talk) 18:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
have and at all times enjoy..... suggests to me that "entitlement" rather than "is". If the Queen says she is LLW, then that is what she is. I disagree with your assertion over "legal names". My name is that on my birth certificate, although I may use any name I wish as long as it is not for fraudulent purposes. If I were female, I would not need to take the style and title of my husand, and could keep my marital name without prejudice. Astrotrain 18:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proteus is 100% right, Astro 100% wrong. I'm afraid Astro your grasp of royal titles, and interpretation of both the Queen's legal rights and the 1917 Letters Patent is way off. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to "would normally be styled HRH P L of W". I've also removed the specualtion and rambling on seconfd part of the article which does not belong here. In any case the suggestions stated were not actually confirmed, and are speculation. There was no suggestion by the Palace, at least openly, that Beatrice and Eugeine would lose their titles. Astrotrain 10:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lady Louise Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor → Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor – Requested by User:Mr Hall of England[5] to keep in line with the 1960 declaration. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose hardly anybody outside of the court circulars refer to her as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, and most readers would be confused by a change in article title thinking it was somebody else. Her more usual and common name Lady Louise Windsor is by far a more natural title for this article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The common name should be used. She is referred to as Lady Louise Windsor. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The most common name should be used. 1960 declaration shouldn't be given undue weight as in practice "Windsor" and "Mountbatten-Windsor" are often used interchangeably. --Acjelen (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Common name and the fact that Lady Louise Windsor generally won't ever use Mountbatten-Windsor, insofar as the 1960 declaration, while useful when needed, generally isn't used very often. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but that's as much as I remember about my education about the British nobility.) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lady Louise Windsor is her common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, Lady Louise Windsor is her common name, and somehow, her formal name as well. She is referred to as Lady Louise Windsor on the news archive of the official website of the British monarchy (1, 2). On the other hand, 1960 declaration cannot be considered a solid reason for moving this page, as we could also argue that 1917 letters patent technically make her Princess Louise of Wessex, but we know that she does not use that title either. Keivan.fTalk 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox royalty

The subject of this article may be entitled to a royal style but she is a minor. Her parents decided that she should not be treated as a royal but as the daughter of an earl. The Palace thus treats her as the daughter of an earl. So do all reliable sources. So does virtually everyone. Why should Wikipedia be obstinate and treat her the way nobody does, against her parents' wishes? Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And why should Template:British royal family be in the article when the subject is not mentioned in that template? Surtsicna (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And the Palace followed the wishes of the parents to use the subsidiary title and to treat them as children of an earl. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are technically Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, as offspring of a son of the Queen. Their rank is exactly the same as their cousins Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York, usage notwithstanding. Children take the rank of the father, which is why Princess Anne’s children don’t have titles. If you’re going to have an info box there at all, royal is more appropriate than noble. But maybe the info box isn’t necessary. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Infobox person is always appropriate, and the most appropriate one in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
While I would be open to the idea of using Infobox Royalty, as she is a member of the British Royal Family (or at least using Infobox Nobility like her cousin, Lady Amelia Windsor, she is not merely using a 'Subsidiary title'. A subsidiary title is lesser title held by a parent that the child is entitled to use (for example, Lady Amelia Windsor's father is the Earl of St. Andrews out of courtesy, because it is one of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent's subsidiary titles). "Lady" is an honorific title, not a subsidiary. And she is granted the style and title of the daughter of an earl by the Queen's own decision. So while legally she may be a British princess, Lady Louise is styled and addressed not as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex but as The Lady Louise Windsor. If this changes when she comes of age, then a change can be made to Wikipedia. But for now, she is Lady Louise Windsor. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be titled with the name she is known by. However, I think she should be included in the royal info box, not listed as nobility. Unless there is a formal change in the law turning Princess Beatrice into Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor, the legal title of a male line granddaughter of the Queen is Princess, usage notwithstanding. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The choice of which info box to use -- consisting of descriptors that guide insertion of information but which, themselves, remain invisible to general readers -- matters only if it gets interpreted as substantive, rather than advisory -- yet the box is meant to be helpful, not definitive. Those wily Windsors, unlike many dynasties, tend to minimize specific language about themselves, reserving maximum leeway for any future need to "re-interpret". While that is often useful for them, it imposes a hardship on editors of an encyclopedia, who seek precision for the benefit of the reader. Nonetheless, the British monarchy has never felt compelled to explicitly define the term "royal family" by law or decree, and I doubt it behooves us to rush in where angels fear to tread for the purpose of clarifying the term "royal" where it will not usually be visible in the encyclopedia.
That said, it seems to me that what concerns us here is 1. who the subject is, relevant to their Wikipedia entry, and 2. What authority has communicated what information about the subject's status. Lady Louise is primarily notable because of her kinship to the British monarch. That monarch directed, by Palace statement of 19 June 1999 concerning the marriage of her son Prince Edward to Sophie Rhys-Jones, that "any children they might have...would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl". I am unaware of any authoritative communication from any other source about that matter, except the Letters Patent of 1917, part of which Queen Elizabeth II has decided, thus far, shall not be applied in this case.
She did not, however, otherwise exclude the Wessex children from the ambit of the 1917 Letters Patent, which, as gazetted on 14 December 1917, decreed, "The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent...to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."
Although subsequent amendments have been made that don't bear on this case, that is as close as the Crown seems to have come to explicit expression of its concept of the "royal family". And while not exhaustive, it seems to me to include the children, male-line grandchildren and male-line great-grandchildren of British sovereigns. FactStraight (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Royalty box or nobility person box

Should the person box for this article be royalty or nobility or simply a person box? I still think a royalty box is most appropriate for the reasons discussed above. The question is being raised again by Another Wikipedian. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bookworm857158367: The discussion about Louise being a member of the royal family or not is very much beating on a dead horse. Consensus in Wikipedia is that she is not a royal, because the Queen and her parents decided to not treat her and her brother like royals. Either way, she is certainly part of the nobility, so it is more than appropriate to use a nobility box here, instead of a simple person box. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There’s a difference between royalty and nobility. I would still argue that she is legally a princess as her first cousins Beatrice and Eugenia are royal princesses. The nobility box doesn’t seem accurate under the circumstances. But how about putting it to a vote? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bookworm857158367: I'm available for a vote. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


All in favor of changing the box to nobility person box.
Oppose. I think it should be a royalty box. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Support: Considering Louise as a royal is controversial. Considering her as part of the nobility is not. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Template:Infobox nobility is ugly. I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something very unappealing about it. On the other hand, Template:Infobox royalty is inappropriate. I would go with Template:Infobox person. Surtsicna (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Support for either nobility or royalty infoboxes. I prefer infobox royalty, and do not believe it is inappropriate, since by Order of Precedence Lady Louise is a high ranking member of the British Royal Family as a male-line grandchild of the British monarch. If the consensus is that the royalty infobox is inappropriate, then I suggest nobility, because she is a British Lady as the daughter of an Earl. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
She holds no royal title. She is a minor, and her parents specifically asked that she not be treated as a royal. That is why it is inappropriate for us to treat her as a royal. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
They asked for her to not be styled as a royal and wanted her to be kept out of the press. She still holds precedent as a Princess of the United Kingdom (in the Order of Precedence she ranks higher than daughters of dukes, daughters of marquesses, etc. that she would not otherwise as the daughter of an earl). She is a member of the royal family, just as her first cousins are, as male-line grandchildren of the British monarch. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no official definition of the royal family. Male-line grandchildren of the British monarch are just a subset of people entitled to be known as HRH and prince(ss) of the United Kingdom. Louise derives her precedent not from technically being a princess but from being a granddaughter of the sovereign. Zara is not a princess but still ranks as a granddaughter of the sovereign. I maintain that if the sovereign agreed to the wishes of the subject's parents, Wikipedians should not debate it much. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Like Surtsicna, I find the nobility infobox ugly, but again can find little tangible to actually complain about. I think I find it ugly because I see the royalty and person infoboxes more regularly and so am more familiar with those. One thing though that is an objective problem with the nobility infobox is that it doesn't really lend itself well to British royalty and nobility. For example, it says "Noble family: Windsor", but I'm not convinced there is really a concept of a noble family in Britain. A street beggar can share the same surname as a lord. They can both be descended from Edward III. Unlike other European countries, only a peer's first-degree relations are consistently noble; most of his second-degree descendants do not acquire titles because of their descent from him. So, the Earls of Plymouth are all members of the Windsor family but not every Windsor is a noble, and it's a different family to the house of Windsor. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that part of the main difference between British nobility and Continental European nobility is as stated above. However, the gentry are equivalent to the continental untitled nobility. So, while not peers, gentlemen and ladies are considered 'noble'. Nobility is a class, legally structured in the UK, and does not require a title. As for the difference between the Windsors of Plymouth and the House of Windsor, that is because the name Windsor did not originate with the royal house. Their original name was Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. If need be we can change family to Mountbatten-Windsor. I think the nobility infobox would work fine. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the infobox used in this article and other similar articles

RESOLVED
The consensus is that {{Infobox person}} should be used here. Even though Lady Louise clearly is a member of nobility (and that infobox is appropriate for use here on that basis), there is a clear agreement that the aforementioned template better meets the technical needs for this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we use infobox nobility or infobox person for this individual and others who are children of princes and princesses but hold no royal titles? There have been discussions about this issue before and related comments can be found on this talk page. Keivan.fTalk 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Person there has to be some 'cut off point' and a sensible pragmatic point would seem to be where the individual, does not have, or is not referred to by a 'royal' title. I've read the above discussion about whether Louise is technically entitled to be referred to as 'Princess Louise', even if she would be technically so entitled, it is never used and thus she is not 'one of the firm', or at least not central to its future destiny. I base this on common sense rather than any policy guideline. Clearly, she is only notable because of being related to royals, but, as I said there should be some 'cut-off point' to peripheral members of the royal line, especially minors and those who have chosen, or have had chosen for them, as normal a life as possible. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Noble as she is a member of the British nobility. This conversation is not about whether or not she is a princess. She is the daughter of a peer and uses the title of Lady, and therefore is a noble. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Person because of aesthetics and some accuracy concerns. As noted above, I find Template:Infobox nobility ugly. I do not know why, and I do not know whether my personal taste counts for anything, but I strongly prefer Template:Infobox person in all cases. An objective reason, given by DrKay, is that it might not be accurate to describe Mountbatten-Windsors as a noble house. Are they not a royal house? Template:Infobox nobility just does not seem to work with Brits, whereas Template:Infobox person fits everywhere. Oh, and we can also consider the option of having no infobox. Infoboxes are not required and are often more problematic than useful. If we have to resort to an RfC about an infobox, I take it that an infobox is more trouble than it's worth. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Person It fulfills the role perfectly well and avoids argument over whether noble or royal should be used. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Person – if they aren't styled as a royal, it would be simpler to use Infobox:person, which is more clean and easier to use. This infobox is also used for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. CookieMonster755✉ 22:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Archie is not a titled noble though, while Lady Louise is. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Louise is a titled noble. Her brother is, but she merely uses Lady as a prefix just because she's the daughter of an earl. Keivan.fTalk 23:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Noble will do, since Lady is a noble title and that would be consistent with other such, though no one seems to have considered that template for Template:Infobox royalty or the Template:British Royal Family are really more proper thoughts since she is royal by birth and in the line of succession. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:British Royal Family is not an infobox. Keivan.fTalk 23:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Noble - as others have pointed out, royal and noble are not the same thing and just because she doesn't carry any royal titles (Princess etc) doesn't make her any less a member of the nobility. The "lady" in her name is sort of a giveaway, really. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment the majority of arguments in favor of infobox person are using the reasoning that she is not a royal. Royalty and Nobility are two different categories all together. She is the daughter of an earl and entitled to (and officially uses) the title and style of that rank (i.e. Lady). This conversation has nothing to do with whether or not she is legally a princess. While it is common to use Infobox Office Holder for British peers (as they differ from continental European nobles), this situation is regarding a person who is titled but not a peer (but still a noble). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Person In this case, and in many other cases, Infobox person sufficiently covers the subject of the article. It has more options and its appearance is much better than Infobox noble. Keivan.fTalk 23:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Person (invited by the bot) IMO either would be fine and appropriate, but I think person is a better choice. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Delivered of"

Contrary to the recent edit summary, there is nothing unencyclopaedic about using correct formal English - indeed, the exact opposite is the case. To say, for example, "I delivered a baby" is modern uneducated nonsense, on the same level as text-speak. The concept being referred to is deliverance, not delivery. Certain editors need to read the link I posted, and think again. Harfarhs (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Certain editors should assume good faith and read WP:NPA. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Please explain why "Louise was delivered by emergency Caesarean section" is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The edit by Harfarhs may be technically correct in some type of historical formal English, but I disagree with it for the simple reason that readers in the 21st century need to clearly understand what is being written.Tammbecktalk 20:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
"Certain editors should assume good faith and read WP:NPA"
No personal attack was being made. There is no attack in asking someone to think again.
"Please explain why "Louise was delivered by emergency Caesarean section" is wrong."
The reason is given above, supported by the link in my edit summary. Perhaps it has not been read.
"The edit by Harfarhs may be technically correct in some type of historical formal English"
It's not "historical" at all, it is current formal English - and we don't use informal English here. See here. Harfarhs (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the others. There's nothing wrong with 'delivered by': it's just standard idiomatic English easily understood by any native English speaker. The opening party says above that "delivered a baby" is "uneducated nonsense" and then links to Merriam Webster as proof. But what does Merriam Webster say: "delivered a baby". DrKay (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

18th-birthday decision

"In 2020, the Countess of Wessex stated that Louise retained her royal title and style and will make a choice on whether to use it when she reaches the age of 18." And...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.40.58 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And she hasn't made a decision yet. Maybe she never will decide to change her title. The point is that now that she's 18, she's free to make the choice herself, instead of her parents. Keivan.fTalk 04:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Her name and title (again)

This was sort of discussed back in 2003 (see Talk Archive 1) but it still doesn't make sense to me.

She seems to have three names:

  • (a) Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex (by the Letters Patent of 1917)
  • (b) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (our lede)
  • (c) Lady Louise Windsor (our article title).

Now, it was decided at the time of her parents' marriage that, while she would formally retain the status conferred by (a), it would not be used in a public capacity, at least not until she turns 18, at which time she would make her own decision. She would in the meantime be styled as the daughter of an earl. She turned 18 a couple of months ago. Any news?

Next. The Court Circulars, Royal website etc all call her Lady Louise Windsor. Not Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. If Windsor is the style that has been decided for her and is universally used in reference to her, where does the M-W come from?

From Mountbatten-Windsor,

  • The British monarchy asserts that the name Mountbatten-Windsor is used by members of the Royal Family who do not have a surname, when a surname is required.
  • ... the surname Mountbatten-Windsor belongs to all male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, and is used by them if and when a surname is needed.
    • By virtue of the 1917 LP, she is a Princess of the UK and therefore does not have a surname. By virtue of who her father is, she is a male-line descendant of QE II. Therefore, if a surname is ever required, it is Mountbatten-Windsor. What could be clearer than that?
  • In contrast, male-line descendants of King George V, the first monarch of the House of Windsor, use Windsor as their surname if and when a surname is needed.
    • But the surname she bears is Windsor, not Mountbatten-Windsor (except in the lede of her Wikipedia article). So, is it claimed that she is somehow not a male-line descendant of Elizabeth II? But that she is a male-line descendant of George V?

The discrepancy between our article title and our lede seems to suggest that, while she is actually Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, she is commonly known as Lady Louise Windsor. But we all know she is actually, legally Princess Louise of Wessex, so whom are we kidding here?

Please clarify this for my poor head. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • That’s it. The Queen decided all of their descendants would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as a mark of respect to Prince Philip, if a surname was needed. Mountbatten-Windsor is a long, double-barreled surname, so the family members usually shorten it to Windsor for common use. Lady Louise is technically and legally Princess Louise of Wessex, just like her older male line cousins are princesses, but her parents didn’t want her to have the burden of the title or being in the public eye, so she was brought up using the style of an earl’s daughter, which she also is, since her father is both a prince and the Earl of Wessex. All of them are rightfully her names and titles and she and her family have just chosen not to use some of them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank for that. The way we explain it in the article could be improved:
  • She is styled as "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor", although letters patent ... assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all children of a monarch's sons. However, when her parents married, the Queen ... announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl .... Thus, court communications refer to her as Lady Louise Windsor.
Despite the word "thus", the last sentence does not flow at all from the preceding sentences. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the succession page on the royal family's site pulled up, and her name given is The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, with the word The in front of her name. fyi https://www.royal.uk/succession 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Louise_Windsor/Archive_1&oldid=1136890639"